Economist's Journey to Life: big

Showing posts with label big. Show all posts

Monday, 18 November 2013

Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed

This image of Harris Rosen has been circulating Facebook. I find it amusing to read the comments made under it. On the one hand society is angered by the rich for appropriating such huge amounts of money for themselves while others are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, when one of these rich people takes responsibility for one neighborhood, he is revered and blessed for doing 'God's work'. This creates quite a conundrum, because on the one side the rich are seen as the problem, as the cause of hardship of the poorer groups in society, but on the other side charity by the rich is seen as a miracle-solution, a divine intervention, that may save the world. The rich are cursed and the rich are blessed.

Truth is that it is indeed unacceptable that some may bathe in glory and riches, the world at their feet, if this disproportionate wealth is enabled by an economic system, which is the same system that can deny others a life of basic dignity. Even the most liberal philosophers tend to agree that liberty cannot be increased at the expense of others' opportunity to improve their well-being - yet due to the interconnectedness of our lives as a result of a shared economic system, it is undeniably what is happening.

At the same time one can see in the example of Harris Rosen that problems such as crime and structural poverty can be remedied through generosity, through giving, through sharing. But can we allow such charity to be dependent on the benevolence of the few rich who give a damn? Perhaps we have no choice, because one needs to have a lot of money to give away a residual amount one doesn't need for personal support. Of course, such a situation is unsustainable and implicitly allows the suffering of many as we submit to the whims of those who have the money to affect change. But is this the whole story?

In fact, each one of us has the power to affect change, because each one has the ability to vote for change. This vote of course does not mean much when the only available proposals are the ones who maintain the status quo. This is where the Living Income Guaranteed proposal intends to offer a solution. With Living Income Guaranteed, the rich can live by the principle of liberty, putting their talents to use to improve their own lifestyle and fulfill their dreams - while at the same time each one is guaranteed of a life of dignity with the opportunity to improve themselves and build themselves up to a similar position. With Living Income Guaranteed, charity would be institutionalized through the provision of a Living Wage to anyone who doesn't have the means to otherwise support themselves. Such a Living Wage can be funded through the profits of companies that form part of the national heritage. This means each citizen is owner of these companies, and in effect, each citizen takes part in charity. As such - we ensure that charity reaches every neighborhood and every family in need of it - and not the lucky few that happen to live in a neighborhood that some rich fellow 'fell in love with'.

The word 'charity' comes from the Latin word 'caritas', which can be translated as 'generous love' - or in other words, charity stands for: Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself - and as the word 'generous' shows: requires giving. As a principle - charity should then not be exclusive or temporary, but institutional; as an agreement by the people to do unto each other what we would like to be done unto.

With Living Income Guaranteed we would no longer curse the rich, because their enrichment is not done at the expense of the rest of society and we would no longer bless the rich, because we have empowered ourselves be the source of the greatest charity through enabling a Living Income.

For more information on the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal - please read this Document and visit http://livingincome.me.

Sunday, 28 July 2013

Day 243: Living Income Guaranteed and Communism

Whenever a new way of organizing society and our economic system opens up, one of the comments that comes to the surface is :"But isn't that communism?"

Now, communism in itself as a word has become a word of Terror. It is used specifically to instigate fear reactions within people, where you do not want to be linked or involved in anything that may be deemed 'communistic'. But what is communism really? Nobody knows anymore. It's one of those terms -- just like the Inflation concept -- that has taken on a life of its own. In the case of communism, it's become a boogieman story. I mean, when people talk about communism and 'fighting communism' it is done from an assumption that communism is 'one clearly defined thing' and ‘it’s clearly evil’. Truth is, there were many various different concepts that developed that could be deemed 'communistic'. It's the same with Religion, you can talk about for instance 'Christianity' but then within that you have various variations and adaptations of Christianity. Forms of communism were adopted in Spain in the 1930s which were highly effective, yet you don’t hear about it anywhere.

So when you talk to people and ask why they are against anything that could closely be related to communism, they go "oh but just look at Russia, and all those people that died it was a total failure, it’s never going to work". What is not being done is putting communism that took place in Russia (or what actually would be more correct is to say 'the communism that DIDN'T take place in Russia) into context.

What must be understood is that Communism as an idea and Communism as ‘what happened in Russia’ are two different things. You see, people were angry, people then had an idea and then they went into a Revolution to try and implement that idea. The thing is that once they were in power – they had no practical plan or way of implementing their idea in a way that would actually work. They had no knowledge of things like politics and economics and were completely inadequate and incompetent to actually run a country. So, they tried things out, it failed, they went into fear and established a form of authoritarianism and all in all the story did not have a happy ending.

To go back to the Christianity example – the way Communism is treated is the same way the Jesus message and Christianity is being treated today. We have what Jesus said, being one thing – as principles of ‘Love thy neighbour’ and ‘Give as you would like to receive’, which is very much a principle of Equality and Harmonious Living. And then you have Christianity in all its various ways as what is ‘supposedly the Jesus message’ – but when you look at what is actually being lived out, is a message of fear, hate and inequality. So just like ‘what Jesus said’ and what ‘Christianity does’ are two completely different things – you can’t say that ‘Communism as an idea’ and ‘How communism took place’ are the exact same thing.

If you look at what happened in Russia, this is exactly one of the reasons why we never promoted any type of ‘Revolution’ to bring about change within any of our proposals, because they are impulsive and short-sighted. So yes, communism in Russia failed because there was no practical common sense reasoning or research that had gone into what they were doing. And because they failed big time, communism now has forevermore been branded by the mark of the Devil, and we should fight it in any way we can.

So now, each time something comes up that even in the slightest way could disturb the way things currently are and can in the slightest way be interpreted as ‘communistic': fear rises and it gets boxed away. All communism has been reduced to in this day and age is a form of fear induced superstition to keep people from actually thinking for themselves, kind of the same way Parents will tell their children that the boogieman’s gonna come for them if they don’t eat their veggies. Come up with any idea that will bring about a change in the way the current system works and people will come at you with the big C-Word to scare you into shutting up and conforming.

It’s come to a point that anything that doesn’t fit and support the status quo is labelled ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ and anything that does support the current system is called ‘democratic’ and ‘free’. It’s just a word used as one pleases – if you don’t like it, call it communistic – if you do like something, call it ‘democratic and free’. I mean, you can have two countries who both to some extent operate within a form of Nationalization – but depending on how much they threaten the status quo the one will be called Communistic and the other one won’t. It’s just a word of convenience. Take Chile for instance whose economy is based on the nationalization of copper, copper being one of their main exports. They nationalized it and they did it effectively – and yet Chile is not deemed communistic. In fact, the World Bank will tell you that they are very proud of Chile and that Chile is an example for other South American countries in terms of adopting the Free Market System. But if you’re a different country and you nationalize say your oil and you adopt policies that are unfavorable to the United States = now you’re communistic = You are evil, your president is the Devil, you must be stopped.

It should actually become a rule that you can’t use the word ‘Communism’ in any form of argument or way to make a point, because the word has gotten abused so much that it’s just a joke. If you can’t make a point without resorting to terms like Communism as a form of Propaganda to terrorize people, then you just shouldn’t bother.

Friday, 26 July 2013

Day 242: The EFF and Land Redistribution in South Africa

The EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) in South Africa, under the leadership of Julius Malema, are placing some very cool points on their political manifesto. One of them is to nationalise resources, including financial intermediaries and the South African Reserve Bank. Reserve Banks being the institution that steers monetary policy in an economy should by principle be in the hands of the people and not an independent point where so-called experts apparently have the right to do what they think is best. Such points are too important to exclude from public decision-making.

Another point they insist on is the redistribution of land as land is so extremely skewly owned in SA at the moment as an outcome of colonisation and apartheid. To pretend that such huge disadvantage will simply 'fix itself' is delirious. Herein, the EFF wants a full audit to find out how much land is available and what it is being used for - where, land that is wasting away would be re-appropriated and put to proper use. Having this information mapped out would obviously be able to significantly speed up the process of equitable land distribution.

The problem comes in with the call to start occupying land as a statement of 'taking what's ours'.

"The position is that we are expropriating without compensation. We want that to be an act [of law], and before it becomes an act, our people should begin the process of occupying the land.”

Encouraging and enticing people to take the law in one's own hands will inevitably lead the country into disorder, chaos and conflict. Taking such route to increase the popularity vote without consideration for the repercussions is only a sign of immaturity and a lack of understanding of what true leadership entails. Within the international community no-one would take such leadership seriously as it undermines the very political and legal system that it is supposed to derive its legitimacy from.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/State-must-own-SA-Reserve-Bank-EFF-20130720

Monday, 24 June 2013

Day 236: Living Income Guaranteed will Reduce Suicide Rates

The American Association of Suicidology says:

"There is a clear and direct relationship between rates of unemployment and suicide. The peak rate of suicide in 1933 occurred one year after the total US unemployment rate reached 25% of the labor force. Similar findings have been documented internationally. At the individual level, unemployed individuals have between two and four times the suicide rate of those employed. As well, economic strain and personal financial crises have been well documented as precipitating events in individual deaths by suicide. Stressful life events, financial and others, have significant impact on those vulnerable to suicide where typical coping mechanisms are compromised by the effects of mental disorder, substance use, acute psychiatric symptoms, and a host of other risk factors associated with suicide.

Of current concern is the high rate of home foreclosures. More than a million people recently have lost their homes, about as many as did in the Great Depression when the population was about half what it is today. For most Americans, our homes are our primary investment and the locus of our identities and social support systems. When combined with the loss of job, home loss has been found to be one of the most common economic strains associated with suicides. In contrast to many other developed nations, the US provides little cushion to buffer these strains -- unemployment benefits are generally limited in duration and are considerably less than full pay levels, there is no national health insurance, etc."

Suicide rates can be brought to an extreme low once and for all through implementing a Living Income Guaranteed - where each one who is unemployed is unconditionally provided with an income that is sufficient to acquire what one needs to live a dignified life.

In many first world countries - as economic depression sets in, psychological depression follows suit right away - because security is taken away, because the future becomes uncertain, because if the economy does not start growing in time - every middle-class income household's livelihood is in jeopardy - never mind the lower class. When the depression persists and suicidal thoughts gain the upper hand, children lose fathers and mothers - families are torn apart. Such trauma can be prevented through ensuring a stable economic system. Providing a Living Income Guaranteed must therefore go hand in hand with the necessary changes in the economic and political systems so as to ensure lasting stability and sustainability - instead of being at the mercy of economic polarity-swings.

For more information - read up on the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal on the Living Income Website: http://livingincome.me/wiki/The_Living_Income_Guaranteed_Proposal

Also check out the google hangout discussions on the Living Income Guaranteed YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BIGuaranteed?feature=watch

Monday, 17 June 2013

Day 233: Can LIG provide us the punch to beat the recession?

Whenever the point of policies in relation recessions opens up in economy textbooks, we look at expansionary and monetary policies to help stimulate the economy. Within this government spending, taxation and interest rates play a major role. Here, we are pulling strings from a giant tapestry, hoping that a pull here and there will have an effect way down, on the other side of the tapestry, somewhere down the line… (if we allow enough time to pass by of course).

Yet, we can stimulate the economy a lot more effectively by boosting the aggregate demand in the economy, through the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed
.
By granting everyone who does not have access to a stable income with a grant that allows them to live a decent life, we generate a greater level of disposable income. Those who were previously surviving and saving – now transfer more money towards spending and consumption.

As disposable income goes up, demand goes up, spending goes up and the wheels of the economy are greased up: economic activity goes up and economic growth is being promoted! As people want more things, more people need to be employed and the unemployment rate goes down. People get their needs taken care of, suppliers and producers are able to sell their things and jobs are being created.
As the economic capital grows, the social capital improves as well. As people’s living standards rise, people become more effective and efficient in their activities.

Implementing a Basic Income Grant System, is a win-win situation.

Check out the following blogs for more information:

Living Income and Nationalized Resources

Living Income Can Save Capitalism

Living Income and Minimum Wage

Living Income Guaranteed and the Nationalization of Banks

Living Income Guaranteed and Pensions

Thursday, 13 June 2013

Day 232: Putting Economic Theory into Practice with Living Income Guaranteed

Living Income Guaranteed as the Capitalist’s Answer to a Healthy and Wealthy Economy

Any economist is familiar with Keynes and the Keynesian economic model of a demand-driven economy. Keynes understood that money requires to move for an economy to thrive, in the same way that blood must flow for a body to be healthy.

An economy can be broken down into three basic flows: Spending, production and income – spending requires to happen for companies to be able to produce goods – the production of these goods then provides income to the employees of the companies that produced them. There is thus an undeniable link between spending and income. When too few people have adequate income, or when income is too low – too little is spent, too little is produced – and income reduces even more.

The ideal way to ensure spending is therefore to secure everyone with an Income.

Furthermore – capitalism can only work if Equal Opportunity of Participation exists. Unless Equal Opportunity exists, capitalism becomes a system of exclusion and deprivation – because Capitalism only ensures efficient production and distribution of resources for those with an income. Therefore – to prevent Capitalism from becoming a weapon, but instead, an actual management system as how it was intended to be – each individual should have a guaranteed income.

Furthermore – an economy will not only thrive through money movement, BIG pilot projects have shown that more children attend school, and thus, one will have a more qualified labor force in the future – increasing the intellectual capital in an economy.

A Guaranteed Living Income is a Human Right

Regardless of the economic arguments, guaranteed income is a basic human right. To speak of Basic Human Rights without securing the means through which to benefit from these rights, is useless.

The Equal Life Foundation therefore suggest that the Living Income one receives should be sufficient to be able to enjoy one’s Basic Human Rights, and thus, large enough for individuals and families to live a decent human life – meaning: one can live off a Living Income Guaranteed with dignity. This implies the ability to pay for one’s basic needs such as electricity, water, food and clothing – but also extends to the means to participate in our current society and thus includes things such as a car, a phone/cell phone and internet access.

Social Dividends

To fund a Living Income Guaranteed – a system of social dividends is ideal. In every country there are those goods and services that are vital for the basic well-being of the citizens of that country. Examples are basic resources such as water, electricity, raw materials, transportation and media. Such goods and services do not belong in private hands – but belong to each individual of the nation. Therefore – every citizen should be a shareholder of every company involved in the production of such goods and services.

This is not a new idea – as early as 1935, G.D.H. Cole, wrote the following:

“How will ... incomes be distributed? There are two possible ways - payments for work done, and 'doles', or, to give them a less coloured name, 'social dividends'. I believe the system of distribution will be a combination of these two, but a very different combination from that which now exists. ... There will remain, broadly, two sources of income - work and citizenship. Incomes will be distributed partly as rewards for work, and partly as direct payments from the State to every citizen as 'social dividends' - a recognition of each citizen's claim as a consumer to share in the common heritage of productive power.” (Cole 1935, pp. 234-235)

The dividends one receives from the profits of these nationally owned companies then form the Living Income Guaranteed. With each one being a shareholder, each one immediately also has an equal say in the activities of such companies – which is an application of direct democracy in the areas of life that are most important, which again solidifies and protects each one’s Basic Human Rights.

Incentive to Work

The inevitable question then comes up: If everyone receives an income that covers one’s needs – who will be willing to work?

This is where the Equal Life Foundation suggests an interesting solution. To provide incentive – the minimum wage should be double the Living Income. This means that anyone who has a job can not only fulfill one’s needs, but can enhance one’s quality of life through acquiring luxury items that would not be available on a Living Income budget. One can then afford a bigger house, a larger family, a second car, a bigger garden, more exotic and fulfilling holiday destinations, subscriptions to sports clubs and other leisure organizations, and so on and so forth.

Consequentially - as soon as one has a job – and thus, receives a wage that is at least double the income one would have earned from social dividends – one’s right to the Living Income Guaranteed falls away – simply because one doesn’t require it anymore. The social dividends system then functions as a National Insurance system – combining unemployment fund, life insurance and retirement funds all in one – where, one receives a pay-out based on the applicability to one’ situation.